State v Bulage [2000] PGNC 24; N1975 (15 June 2000)

N1975

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 433 of 2000

Between:

THE STATE

And:

MOREEN BULAGE

Prisoner

KUNDIAWA: KIRRIWOM, J

2000: 12th & 15th June

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - manslaughter of husband by estranged wife - unnecessary killing over unnecessary domestic issue - tariff approach - sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

Counsel:
Mr F. Kuvi for the State
Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

15th June 2000

SENTENCE

KIRRIWOM, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The deceased was her former husband, a senior constable with the police and based at Chuave, and from their marriage they had two children. On the day of this trouble there was some disagreement over the children which turned into a fight between them when the prisoner stabbed the deceased on his neck severing the right subclavian vein resulting in excessive loss of blood. The deceased was rushed to Kundiawa Hospital and despite all the best efforts to revive him, he died. The deceased was admitted in a state of traumatic shock due to the stab wound measuring 3cm wide located above the right clavicle, and attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful when his heart failed to respond and he was pronounced dead. The cause of death was diagnosed as cardiac arrest due to haemorrhagic shock caused by subclavian vein injury. Contributing to the extent of the injury suffered was the laceration of the right lung 9cm wide and 6cm deep.

The argument between the prisoner and deceased concerned what the prisoner described as ‘compensation to the uncles and bubus for looking after the children.’ According to the State version, the deceased only wanted to take the children to his village to spend Christmas and New Year and then return them to their mother. The prisoner however wanted the child Philemon to stay back with her. The child struggled with his mother to let him go as she pulled him away from the father and the elder brother. The father then whipped the prisoner with his dog-chain for her to release the son. As the fight continued the prisoner stabbed the deceased.

The fight in this case was unnecessary, the use of knife in this fight was unnecessary and finally the death resulting from this fight was also unnecessary. It matters not whether I accept the State’s version or the prisoner’s version of the incident and why it happened. Taking the prisoner’s version, the ground on which she pursued her complaint fails to render any legitimacy especially when the father had the right to take his children and provide for them in such manner as he best saw fit. Her complaint could have been pursued in other more legitimate way than resorting to methods likely to provoke argument.

I do not find any extenuating circumstances in this case that warrant special consideration and concession on sentence.

In mitigation however I take into consideration the fact that the prisoner pleaded guilty, she is a first offender and she cooperated with the police. I also take into account the fact that she had been married to the deceased for 15 years before he decided to leave her and marry a younger woman. She was under enormous emotional unrest within her to lose a husband of 15 years to a younger woman. I also take into account the fact that there is some element of provocation in the non-legal sense. The deceased used a dog-chain to whip her and she felt severe pain.

In all the circumstances I sentence her to six years imprisonment in light labour. In imposing this sentence I have taken into account the fact that huge compensation demand has been set and preparations are already well advanced for payment to be made sometimes this month.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutors
Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitors